Mocha back-up? Vivian Velez slags LP politikos in series of FB rants

Since Sunday night (November 5), Velez has posted a series of rants which was apparently sparked by the announcement of the resignation of Vice President Leni Robredo from President Rodrigo Duterte’s Cabinet.

“Great news that Leni was fired,” Velez wrote, her bias obvious with her choice of adjective. Robredo is LP chairman.

“Robredo was seen with Mar Roxas at the anti-Marcos anti-Duterte rally at the People Power Monument in White Plains. She would have been a hypocrite indeed if she keeps on attending cabinet meetings when she is against the Duterte government. It’s not wise to have an enemy within,” the ex- actress explained.

Velez also took issue over a part of Robredo’s statement Sunday wherein she acknowledged the plot to “steal” the Vice Presidency from her.

“And the nerve of that woman to keep on using the word “steal”. Who really stole the VP?” asked Velez.

Robredo won the vice presidential race against ex-senator Bongbong Marcos by just 260,000 votes. Marcos has since filed an election protest.

The former sexy actress then turned her sights to other LP personalities–ex-president Benigno Aquino III and Senator Leila de Lima–in a subsequent post.

“I just need some answers… Mr. Ex President Aquino: How did you address woes related to proliferation of illegal drugs in our country during your tenure? Did you know that we’re already a narco country?

“Senator De Lima: How did drug lords multiplied during your watch and Muntinlupa became a factory of drugs?” she wrote.

According to Velez, the entire LP should be probed for its obviousness to the illegal drug problem when it was still in power.

“Better yet, investigate the whole ‘yellow army’ and or Aquino administration. Listening on all of Aquinos SONA–there are no mention of drug ‘menace’ or problems, (why!!!),” she said. #

The comments posted on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of POLITICS.com.ph. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.